Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021 due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation.
(note updated 19 July, 2021)
Ooops ... It was a preprint, it did not survive peer review to become a published paper. But it's worse than that.
Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.
The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.
The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.
In an editorial note, Research Square said that it has launched a formal investigation into the concerns raised by Lawrence and his colleagues. According to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Shorouk, Egypt’s minister of higher education an
This article goes into the findings of the internet sleuths:
The FDA routinely lies, such as statements like this:
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
This simply isn't true. There is nothing "very different" about them.
I have no idea if ivermectin treats COVID well, or not, but it's obvious there is strong political bias against any kind of treatment (other than vaccines), despite the fact vaccines seem to be ineffective past a few months and now need "booster shots".
The FDA routinely lies, such as statements like this:
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
This simply isn't true. There is nothing "very different" about them.
I have no idea if ivermectin treats COVID well, or not, but it's obvious there is strong political bias against any kind of treatment (other than vaccines), despite the fact vaccines seem to be ineffective past a few months and now need "booster shots".
Vaccines are a prophylactic
Ivermectin is intended as a therapeutic
There are plenty of other therapeutics in use for Covid in every hospital across the country from simple fever remedies like acetaminophen and ibuprofen to complicated antivirals like remdesivir and Monoclonal antibodies.
Ivermectin is actually manufactured by the drug company Merck, which developed it in the 1970s. If they thought it was a valuable drug for Covid treatment one thinks they would push for it's approval and cash in on the world-wide sales. However this is Merck's current position on the use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem ... -pandemic/
Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
Ivermectin works by attacking the cell membranes of invertebrate muscle and nerve cells, paralyzing the animal which allows the body to flush the parasite out of the system. Viruses do not have cell membranes. They do not even have cells.
We actually feed Ivermectin to our dog. For dogs it is labeled as "Heartguard" and used to prevent and treat heartworms.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
I'm not claiming ivermectin is an effective treatment; I'm just saying that there aren't really serious side effects of people using it as a home remedy. Literally billions of people take it around the world. It's a "miracle drug" for people who live in areas with persistent parasite infections.
Overall there has been very, very little focus on therapeutics for COVID, which seems strange since, for example, therapeutics for the common cold and for flu are common and important. Given that it seems basically everyone is going to get COVID at some point or another, research into therapeutics (including emergency use authorisations) would seem to be a good idea. You can't vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:42 pm
I'm not claiming ivermectin is an effective treatment; I'm just saying that there aren't really serious side effects of people using it as a home remedy. Literally billions of people take it around the world. It's a "miracle drug" for people who live in areas with persistent parasite infections.
Overall there has been very, very little focus on therapeutics for COVID, which seems strange since, for example, therapeutics for the common cold and for flu are common and important. Given that it seems basically everyone is going to get COVID at some point or another, research into therapeutics (including emergency use authorisations) would seem to be a good idea. You can't vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.
What makes you say there is very little focus on therapeutics? Drug companies are pouring billions of dollars into therapeutic research for Covid. There may not be as much focus in the world of public health where the focus is on prevention. But there has been an absolute explosion all around the world of research and testing of an enormous variety of therapeutics. The New York Times actually has a Treatment Tracker web page were they profile and track the 24 most commonly talked about and studied Covid therapies. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ments.html
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
The FDA routinely lies, such as statements like this:
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
This simply isn't true. There is nothing "very different" about them.
I have no idea if ivermectin treats COVID well, or not, but it's obvious there is strong political bias against any kind of treatment (other than vaccines), despite the fact vaccines seem to be ineffective past a few months and now need "booster shots".
Vaccines are a prophylactic
Ivermectin is intended as a therapeutic
There are plenty of other therapeutics in use for Covid in every hospital across the country from simple fever remedies like acetaminophen and ibuprofen to complicated antivirals like remdesivir and Monoclonal antibodies.
Ivermectin is actually manufactured by the drug company Merck, which developed it in the 1970s. If they thought it was a valuable drug for Covid treatment one thinks they would push for it's approval and cash in on the world-wide sales. However this is Merck's current position on the use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem ... -pandemic/
Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
Ivermectin works by attacking the cell membranes of invertebrate muscle and nerve cells, paralyzing the animal which allows the body to flush the parasite out of the system. Viruses do not have cell membranes. They do not even have cells.
We actually feed Ivermectin to our dog. For dogs it is labeled as "Heartguard" and used to prevent and treat heartworms.
Wrong. Every inexpensive and simple treatment to prevent people from going into the hospital or may have curved the push for a vaccine, was simply discredited, downplayed, censored or lied about. For example hydroxychloroquine which has been used and approved for over 60 years. That coupled with zinc proved to be a very effective way to keep people out of the hospital. Yet you have doctors saying it was dangerous even though in some countries there are people that take it every Sunday they call it their Sunday Sunday medicine. So clearly anything that was helpful in keeping out of the hospital and alive seem to be labeled dangerous! It was just on the radio day before yesterday that the Amish have been using ivermectin since 1974. For themselves!
And who still trust the FDA!?!? They are still prescribing dangerous antibiotics that were black boxed in 2012. There's still prescribing them doctors ignorantly, as if there wasn't danger warnings about the antibiotic. They are still prescribing blood pressure medications that are known to cause cancer! I rapidly been losing my trust and big pharma, fda, and the average ignorant doctor I'm not saying ignorant as in an insult type of way, they are truly ignorant and don't consider a lot of other information out there!!! Why do you think so many lawyers are out there representing people that have been harmed by FDA big pharma medications? I truly believe there are people doctors, Fauci, that should be held accountable and charged with mass murder because hundreds of thousands of people could have been treated effectively and not died. Of course if you're understanding of scripture is that we have an appointed time as a Bible says they would have passed regardless.
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:37 pm
Ivermectin works by attacking the cell membranes of invertebrate muscle and nerve cells, paralyzing the animal which allows the body to flush the parasite out of the system. Viruses do not have cell membranes. They do not even have cells.
You seem to be implying that there is no way that Ivermectin could possibly be of any help for Covid. If that is the case, why is it being studied as a potential treatment?
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:37 pm
Ivermectin works by attacking the cell membranes of invertebrate muscle and nerve cells, paralyzing the animal which allows the body to flush the parasite out of the system. Viruses do not have cell membranes. They do not even have cells.
You seem to be implying that there is no way that Ivermectin could possibly be of any help for Covid. If that is the case, why is it being studied as a potential treatment?
I'm just pointing out that it is designed to attack invertebrate cell membranes and paralyze the muscle and nerve cells of invertebrates. That is what the decades of study and testing of Ivermectin have been about. Viruses have neither cell membranes nor cells. Specifically, Ivermectin binds to to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells membranes. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions, and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes. This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the animal. Which is what makes it a very effective remedy for parasites.
The anti-viral effects of the drug are less well understood. It may well have anti-viral effects but whether those effects make it a preferred therapy over other antivirals is the real question. And whether the dosing required to achieve anti-viral effects is universally safe. You can also kill the virus by swallowing salt. But the quantity required to destroy the virus would also kill you. Some of the biggest studies on Ivermectin have been withdrawn for shoddy or falsified data, which has basically torpedoed the results of the meta analyses of Ivermectin as well.
The question isn't whether Ivermectin has any effects. Even ordinary acetaminophen and ibuprofen can be effective therapies for mild Covid. The question is whether it is a better, more effective, and safer drug than the other alternatives on the market that have had far more rigorous studies. Do people promoting Ivermectin know what the ideal dosage and treatment regime is to maximize anti-viral effectiveness and reduce side effects? Do they know what conditions might be contra-indicated or who it might not be safe to use on? I doubt it because those sorts of large-scale clinical studies have simply not been done.
3 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:37 pm
Ivermectin works by attacking the cell membranes of invertebrate muscle and nerve cells, paralyzing the animal which allows the body to flush the parasite out of the system. Viruses do not have cell membranes. They do not even have cells.
You seem to be implying that there is no way that Ivermectin could possibly be of any help for Covid. If that is the case, why is it being studied as a potential treatment?
I'm just pointing out that it is designed to attack invertebrate cell membranes and paralyze the muscle and nerve cells of invertebrates. That is what the decades of study and testing of Ivermectin have been about. Viruses have neither cell membranes nor cells. Specifically, Ivermectin binds to to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells membranes. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions, and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes. This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the animal. Which is what makes it a very effective remedy for parasites.
The anti-viral effects of the drug are less well understood. It may well have anti-viral effects but whether those effects make it a preferred therapy over other antivirals is the real question. And whether the dosing required to achieve anti-viral effects is universally safe. You can also kill the virus by swallowing salt. But the quantity required to destroy the virus would also kill you. Some of the biggest studies on Ivermectin have been withdrawn for shoddy or falsified data, which has basically torpedoed the results of the meta analyses of Ivermectin as well.
The question isn't whether Ivermectin has any effects. Even ordinary acetaminophen and ibuprofen can be effective therapies for mild Covid. The question is whether it is a better, more effective, and safer drug than the other alternatives on the market that have had far more rigorous studies. Do people promoting Ivermectin know what the ideal dosage and treatment regime is to maximize anti-viral effectiveness and reduce side effects? Do they know what conditions might be contra-indicated or who it might not be safe to use on? I doubt it because those sorts of large-scale clinical studies have simply not been done.
To me Ivermectin is not an either or therapy in that it has to be better than other therapies or it shouldn't be used. My question is why it's not being used more widely in the USA like in other parts of the world.
